Tim Boswell: We welcome it when people get into work, but will the Secretary of State not acknowledge that the number of people of working age who are still economically inactive is stuck at almost 7.9 million and the number of unemployed young people—the subject of Labour's flagship new deal programme— has risen from just under 30 per cent. to 42 per cent. as a proportion of the total unemployed? Is it really any longer plausible, as the Secretary of State has argued today after £5 billion worth of investment on the new deal, to say that just because the new deal and falls in unemployment are consecutive, one caused the other—any more than night causes day?

Malcolm Wicks: I am sure that the Treasury will look at that and other suggestions. The crucial thing is the percentage of contribution going into a scheme— he combined percentage from the employer and the employee—rather than the particular mechanism, whether it is final salary, defined benefit, defined contribution or a hybrid. The final salary scheme has not always been the best friend of many women and others with caring responsibilities. However, it is the level of contribution that we should be focusing on, and we look forward to the report of the Turner Commission.

Vincent Cable: Does the Minister recall that I wrote to her in November about the fact that 1 million people in south London have to telephone for an appointment for a national insurance number, but the telephone number they are given is uncontactable? I heard yesterday from the citizens advice bureau not only that that number is uncontactable but that alternative numbers given to those people are uncontactable too? Since thousands of people have been prevented from working legally by inefficiency in the Department, can the Minister explain precisely what they are supposed to do?

John Prescott: It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) does not do the research to substantiate her allegations. As for a housing crisis, I do not think that anyone doubted that there was one in 1997 when we came to office. There was negative equity, the public sector had been robbed of 1.8 million houses—[Interruption.] Can you shut up for a second while I explain the position? [Interruption.] I am talking to the hon. Member for Meriden.
	When we fought the election in 1997, one of the major concerns was the crisis in housing caused largely by boom and bust in the economy. Housing paid the price. Housing investment in the last five years of the previous Administration was slashed by half; it has doubled under ours. The lowest amount of house building for decades occurred at that time. Please do not tell me that there was not a housing crisis and a problem of credibility.
	The hon. Lady talks about the council tax and says that we increased it by 30 per cent. in real terms and that, in the four years before we came in, they had cut it by 7 per cent. That is just untrue. Those are some of the facts that she must consider before making accusations in the way that she has.
	The hon. Lady talked about building on brownfield land. We have increased that from 57 to 67 per cent., whereas the previous Administration argued whether they could go to 60 per cent., as anybody who remembers the debates in 1997 will know. We have done very well.
	On housing density, if the hon. Lady is concerned about the south-east, surely the Conservatives should have raised the density levels required in the south-east in the way that I did—from 25 to 30 per hectare, and it is has now gone up to 35. Therefore, the extra 200,000 houses in our programme can be built on the same amount of land that she planned for 900,000. Using land more efficiently and using brownfield is the way to proceed, and that is exactly what the previous Administration did not do.
	On the housing association capital receipts that the hon. Lady mentioned, the housing associations will receive, as they did before, the full receipts. In fact, I have gone a little further. It has always been a common complaint that local authorities are not treated the same as housing associations in regard to capital receipts returns from the sale of homes. On this occasion, we are now giving the returns to the local authorities so that they, like housing associations, can have the full receipts from the sale of homes. That creates the level playing field that I have constantly been asked for.
	The hon. Lady will know that council receipts are something like £2 billion this year. According to the Conservative party's policy document, that will be used in all other housing investment areas. She should talk to the shadow Chancellor, because he presumes that the £2 billion that is used at present will be available to him when he calculates the costs. Again, the figures do not add up.
	The hon. Lady has a cheek to talk about capital receipts, because the previous Government held back capital receipts. They did not even allow local authorities to replace the housing that was being taken out of the public stock. Indeed, one of the first things that I did when I came to office was to get hold of those capital receipts and begin to improve the stock of all the 2 million houses that were not of a decent standard. In those circumstances, she should look at the consequences of her policies, least of all now that the James report seems to suggest that the Conservatives will slash another £500 million out of the housing programme. When they launched their programme in November, they probably did not tell her that the James report was coming out in January and would effectively slash her proposals in the new housing document.
	I thought it was quite offensive when the hon. Lady talked about key worker ghettos. [Interruption.] Did the hon. Lady say that? Did she say that? We introduced a key worker policy when there was not one under the previous Administration, and I have seen an example of it today in Ealing. It is a tremendous development built by both the public and private sectors, and I talked to one of the ladies there. She was absolutely delighted because she could not have paid the full price. Some 40 per cent. of tenants and key workers in that area are in that position and no one would describe it as a ghetto. I suggest that the hon. Lady go out and have a look at it. The record of the previous Administration was deplorable. They created the crisis and now she is saying that, although everybody agrees that we need more houses, we do not want them in the nimby south-east. People in that area do want houses and we will provide precisely what is wanted.

John Prescott: Sustainable communities are not only about building housing but providing the supporting infrastructure in education, health and transport systems. The extra investment that we are putting into the new growth areas does precisely that and will also be critical in providing jobs. Our approach to new towns reflected that and our new community growth areas will certainly do so. I have mentioned the possibility of giving more information to people who are considering moving to a different area. They might want to move from my hon. Friend's constituency up to Hull, where houses and jobs are available. We will therefore provide more information, as it is important to connect jobs as well as housing to quality of life. Too often in the past, we have given people houses, but there were no jobs, so we had to pay housing benefit, and those people just existed. That was the policy, in particular, under the previous Administration.
	As for the Conservatives' arguments about concreting over the south-east, the fact that density has increased and that I can build 200,000 more houses on the same land on which they envisaged 900,000 suggests much more effective land usage. We can build more houses without taking any more land. That is an intelligent approach to the housing problem. The previous Administration got into a mess because they did not have any common-sense policies.

John Prescott: Who is he? As a Welshman, I find that I can get into enough trouble going into Wales and getting involved in Welsh politics, without getting involved in that here. Let me quote what Jim Coulter, chief excutive of the National Housing Federation, said today about the plan. He said:
	"Right-To-Buy is unrealistic and extending it is an irrelevant policy. If the government comes forward with social home-buy, this will provide more choice for tenants and allow for investment in sustainable communities."
	Shelter has equally come out in support of the measure. They make the point that we need to build far more houses to deal with the real problem of supply and demand, but anyone who understands the problem will know that it will not be solved in two or three years. However, we are moving in the right direction. I will leave others to judge whether I have pinched one of the Welsh nationalist policies, but at least we appear to agree.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move,
	That the Order of 1st November 2004 be varied by the substitution for paragraphs 4 and of the following:
	1.   Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption.
	2.   Those proceedings shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following table, and each part of those proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the second column.
	
		
			  
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 Amendments relating to Clauses 7, 68, 85, 88, 161, 162 and 179;New Clauses NC7 and NC11;Amendments relating to Clauses 83, 89, 266 and 272. Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order. 
			 Amendments relating to Clause 58; Remaining proceedings on consideration. One hour before the moment of interruption. 
		
	
	3.   Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.
	The motion will ensure that in the time available, hon. Members can concentrate on the key issues in the Bill—casinos, bingo, charity lotteries and amusement arcades. I am sure that the key issues and the drafting amendments, which are designed to improve the Bill, can be debated adequately in that time.

Richard Page: I would like to add to my hon. Friend's remarks. This Bill has been around, in various shapes and forms, for some four or five years. We had the Budd report, the White Paper, the pre-legislative scrutiny and then the Bill, which has been heavily amended throughout. The major concerns expressed by the Joint Committee regarding the planning advice were swept to one side with the claim that that was all firmly in place, but now, at the 11th hour, those changes are being proposed.
	On Second Reading the Secretary of State did a somersault, or U-turn—call it what one will—that substantially changed the character and nature of the Bill. Then in Committee, after 300 clauses, with only 60 or so to go, and after numerous Government amendments and new clauses, the Minister produced the 888 policy. In my 28 or 29 years in this House, I had never seen a Standing Committee adjourn to debate a ministerial statement at the tail end of its proceedings. This has been a catalogue of mismanagement, order, counter-order and disorder. If I were a Minister or an official I would be extremely embarrassed for things to be in this state today.
	I shall follow my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) in not taking too much time, because we want to get on to the amendments. However, I felt it right to register, for the first time, my views about a programme motion. Most programme motions are spurious, but this one represents an abuse of the House. It is an abuse of parliamentary procedure to bring forward on Report more than 90 Government amendments and some six new clauses, and allow us only until 10 o'clock to get through it all. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that through your office you can express that concern in the appropriate quarters.

Clause 7
	 — 
	Casino

Don Foster: The time it has just taken you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to read out the amendments in this first group reinforces the manner in which our proceedings will be dealt with.
	Amendment No. 102 has been tabled in my name and that of the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) and others. The genesis of the Bill goes back to the Budd report of 2001, and it is worth reflecting that, in the early stages of his work, Sir Alan Budd sent a note to members of his committee that included a paragraph entitled "The Chairman's Dream", which optimistically stated:
	"I hope we shall be able to establish principles which are acceptable to all sensible people and shall make proposals consistent with those principles. The (unanimous) report will then be published (to schedule) to widespread acclaim and all its recommendations will be accepted."
	I suspect that Sir Alan and members of his committee will be bitterly disappointed that, following his report, as well as two detailed reports from the Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament and endless discussions in Standing Committee, we are still a long way from achieving "widespread acclaim" for the Government's Gambling Bill. As you have just demonstrated, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Bill is characterised by innumerable amendments, many of which have been tabled by the Government. As we can see from the amendment paper, many more are still to be debated.
	This first group of amendments deals with the important issue of casinos, and it is worth reflecting on the fact that there has been much support from all sides for the Bill's provisions, including the establishment of a new tough, independent regulator through the creation of the gambling commission, which will replace the Gaming Board. We understand from a press notice today that the new body is likely to be located in Birmingham. The measures to increase requirements in respect of social responsibility for all involved in the gambling industry, and to bring remote gambling—interactive television and internet gambling, for example—under regulation for the first time have also received support. Many hon. Members were delighted when the Secretary of State announced on Second Reading that casinos would be designated as a single-use category under planning regulations, although I hope that the Minister for Sport and Tourism will tell us when we can expect to hear more about that.
	The Minister has often claimed, perhaps rightly, that as much as 90 per cent. of the Bill has the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it is the issue of casinos that causes the greatest controversy. The Government's proposals on casinos came as a huge shock to many members of the public and many Members of the House. They simply could not understand why a Labour Government wanted to increase greatly the opportunities for gambling, and, in particular, launch a massive growth in the number of casinos, when, bizarrely, no member of the Government could even tell us with certainty how many casinos currently exist.
	In particular, many of us simply could not reconcile the Government's initial plans to allow the unlimited introduction of new super-casinos, each of them having up to 1,250 new so-called category A machines—which are untried in this country—with unlimited stakes and prizes, with the statement made by the Secretary of State to the Joint Committee that,
	"If this legislation gave rise to an increase in problem gambling then it would have failed and it would be bad legislation".
	Stung by the criticism, the Government backed down and made a welcome U-turn—not all U-turns are bad—for which there was a great deal of support. The Government then told us, despite having told us previously that they thought that it was a bad idea, that they intended to cap the number of new regional super-casinos at eight. The Committee was much amused by the musings of the hon. Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks) on why the figure of eight had been chosen. He wondered, for instance, whether it was related to the atomic number of oxygen being eight, or whether it had some connection with the Buddhist eightfold path to enlightenment. Whatever the reason, however, the cap was a good idea I note that there is an amendment in this group to reduce that number from eight to four. I want to make it clear that we will not support that amendment if a vote is called on it.
	Perhaps more surprising, however, was the Government's announcement that it would also cap the number of new large and small casinos at eight. That now means caps of eight, eight and eight, which is remarkably reminiscent of the internet gambling site www.888.com. There are arguments for a cap on the number of large and small casinos if, crucially, that does not unduly prejudice the existing British casino industry. That is why amendments Nos. 141 and 142 are crucial, and why, if there is a vote on them, we will support them. After all, the British casino industry has an enviable record of being responsible and free of crime. It would be a huge mistake were we to allow the Bill to pass without ensuring that our industry is given a fair chance against the foreign competitors who are already at our door, seeking to pick up the spoils that the Bill creates. As the Bill stands, the indigenous industry could lose out significantly. If the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will explain in detail the nature of that threat and the solution to it.
	I want to give one example of why, unless we guarantee both grandfather rights and the right to allow some trading up as proposed in those amendments, we could see many existing casinos lose some of their machines, while new casinos will be allowed a far greater number. At present, existing casinos are allowed 10 machines. They also have a number of electronic roulette or auto-roulette devices. A Bournemouth casino, for example, has 26 such devices, one in Birmingham has 38, and many others have 10 or more. In part 10 of the Bill, however, those devices are redefined as machines. Therefore, since casinos will only be allowed a total of 10 machines, unless we provide grandfather rights and the right to trade up, as proposed in amendments Nos. 141 and 142, every existing casino would see a reduction in the number of their current machines.
	On amendments Nos. 102, 100, 101, 116 and 117, removing restrictions on casinos has been a key focus of this Bill since its inception. It proposes the removal of the 24-hour rule and membership of casinos. Following those relaxations, identification is no longer necessary for someone to enter a casino.
	While liberalising the gaming industry has its benefits, we must be diligent about the possible dangers. Casinos without some form of identification requirement could easily attract criminals. As can be seen in the Treasury's anti-money laundering strategy document, the National Criminal Intelligence Service said as recently as 26 October last year
	"Money launderers can take advantage of the facilities offered by casinos to disguise the origins of their funds. Launderers can take 'dirty' cash into a casino, exchange it for chips, spend a few hours gambling, and then exchange the chips (with a gain or loss according to their play) for a casino cheque which can subsequently be presented as an apparently legitimate source of funds."
	We tabled the amendments with the aim of preventing crime and money laundering from infiltrating our casinos. They clearly set out a system under which well-monitored areas in casinos will be designated for gaming. To enter such areas, gamblers will have to provide identification for the casino operators, who will then use the information from identification to keep track of those who frequent their casinos. Those measures will not only curb money laundering and crime, but help with problem gambling. We are well aware that many casinos currently operate self-barring schemes, enabling problem gamblers to request that their casino membership be suspended and entry denied to deal with their addiction. If there were no requirement for ID on entry to a casino, it would be very difficult for such schemes to operate. I consider that unacceptable, as many operators find the schemes particularly beneficial in combating customer addiction to the new high-price slot machines.

Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman is right to express concern about internet gambling. Recent evidence suggested that young children currently had no difficulty in gambling on the internet. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there is a great deal of support—in, I think, all parts of the House—for the clauses that will bring internet gambling under regulation, and that proposals in a later group of amendments will toughen the arrangements still further. There remains the problem of internet gambling operations that are based in the UK, but have a server based somewhere else. I know that the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford has tabled an amendment to deal with that.
	The issue of children is clearly important. The amendments propose the establishment of a clearly identified area for high-stakes machines, which will be heavily supervised. Children will not be allowed into such areas, as long as we know who is defined as a child in the legislation. If we do not have a system of identification, it will be difficult for those doing the supervising to know who is under 18, for example. We have discussed that in other contexts, such as the licensing legislation: landlords will have a problem if there is no identification system. A number of benefits would accrue from the amendments, which would not only deal with money laundering but protect young children and help with problem gambling.
	In Committee, the Minister said that although ID was currently required for entry to all casinos,
	"we are not persuaded that it would be right in future to require identification on entry in all cases . . . The casinos of the future will not be the same as casinos now."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 December 2004; c. 351.]
	But despite the complications and difficulties that I accept may well arise for the big regional casinos dealing with large numbers of punters streaming in on Saturday nights, I think it imperative for a mechanism to be established to protect the British gaming industry from crime, as well as protecting young people and problem gamblers.
	The Minister may well tell us that the Government are awaiting the outcome of European Union deliberations on the third directive on money laundering, but one thing is clear: the Government themselves have accepted that the gambling commission must establish a clear set of guidelines. Indeed, clause 24 states that arrangements must be made for the purposes of
	"ensuring that gambling is conducted in a fair and open way",
	for
	"protecting children and other vulnerable persons from being harmed or exploited by gambling",
	and for
	"making assistance available to persons who are or may be affected by problems related to gambling."
	I genuinely believe that the provision of identification would help in all those cases, and that it would be consistent with the terms of the third directive and with what the Government claim that they wish to achieve.
	I turn to amendments Nos. 103 to 105. Although regulating access to a gaming area is an important issue, so is the powers that we give to local authorities over the introduction of casinos in their area. Local authorities should be given as much freedom as possible, within the proposed caps, to take advantage—or not—of the increased gambling opportunities afforded by the Bill. As currently drafted, clause 161 empowers local authorities to say no only to any casino whatsoever; it does not enable them to say that they want, for example, only one casino, or only two or three casinos. Amendments Nos. 103 to 105 would enable local licensing authorities to place their own cap on the number of casinos in their area, and at a figure other than zero. When such authorities review premises' licences, they should have as much freedom as possible to determine what kind of premises they want in their area and how many there should be.
	Finally, the purpose of new clause 11, which deals with cheating, is to make it illegal to carry articles into a casino that could help in analysing or predicting the odds or outcome of the game. It tackles the problem of so-called "advantage players", who use such articles to help them during the game, but who argue that they are not cheating because they are not interfering with the game. We tabled a similar amendment in Committee, but we withdrew it after the Minister assured us on 30 November last year that a gambler who does anything that unfairly increases his chances of winning is cheating and is therefore covered.
	Despite that assurance and others given by the Minister in subsequent conversations, we are not convinced that the Bill as drafted would result in "advantage playing" being considered an offence. Current legislation certainly does not consider it so. On 6 December—only a few days after the Minister gave us that assurance in Committee—The Times reported an incident at the Ritz casino in which the use of a device in a mobile phone enabled the players in question to predict the outcome of every spin of a roulette wheel. As a result, they scooped £1.3 million. However, according to legal advice, because the device had not interfered with the game the gamblers were not in breach of current law, and were therefore able to hold on to their winnings. The purpose of new clause 11 is to change the system, so that we can be absolutely sure that so-called "advantage" cheaters will be unable to get away with such things.
	Many jurisdictions—in Nevada, in South Africa and in a number of Australian states, for example—already explicitly legislate against practices such as that employed during the Ritz episode. They have laws that prevent not only the sort of cheating described by the Minister in Committee, but offences relating to the possession or use of the devices mentioned in our new clause. Our suggestion is therefore already in operation elsewhere, and its use would not be unprecedented.
	There are a number of other amendments to which many Members will wish to speak, but I should make it clear before I finish that the part of the Bill dealing with casinos is still a long way from being likely to achieve the widespread acclaim that Sir Alan Budd referred to. I hope that our amendments are accepted, so that they can at least move the Bill in the right direction.

Win Griffiths: I can only thank my hon. Friend for providing me with that information. Given the context of the Bill, that decision is highly dubious, and I certainly hope that there will not be a super-casino in Cardiff.
	There is much evidence about the impact of super-casinos. The famous Atlantic City survey showed that unemployment there reduced by very little and that the nature of its businesses changed. By 1996, some 1,000 businesses had gone, and there are now only 60 independent hotels there.

Richard Page: With the reform of gambling, and the broad agreement in most quarters, the House can welcome many aspects of the Bill—the establishment of a gambling commission, further help for problem gamblers and new forms of control of new gambling, such as the internet and betting exchanges. However, the Minister seems to have adopted the line—I have seen it manifest itself twice, first in response to me and then in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale)—that attack is the best form of defence. After his Committee performance, this is the only home he has to go to. He said that the Government had listened and that the statement that he made was a result of the Government listening. I have already expressed my sympathy to the Minister for being lumbered with the Bill. He is a nice chap and it was not his fault. I do not know who gave it to him and ordered him to take it through the House, but they are the smart ones. They got out of doing it and lumbered the Minister with it. Now he must live with it.
	The Minister said that he had listened to concerns and produced what I call the 888 statement, but the existing casino operators said they had not been consulted. The statement came as a bolt from the blue. The point has been made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). I keep calling him my hon. Friend, because we had a relationship in Committee that grew warm and friendly as the days went by. No doubt an election will soon cause it to come asunder. He said, and I repeat, that the existing casino operators were not consulted prior to the 888 statement. Nothing that I have heard so far contradicts that. Perhaps the Minister will say that he consulted deeply with the casino operators before making the statement.
	I support the hon. Member for Bath on the damage that will be caused to the existing industry. It is an industry that has a good reputation. To the best of my knowledge, it has caused no more than small problems in one or two areas. Compared with the industry in the rest of the world, we can feel pride in and respect for ours, so why are the Government trying to damage it? Normally, with any Government, I would think that there was a deliberate plan to knock the existing casino industry. But with the chaos and confusion that has surrounded the Bill's passage, I can only assume that this is a mistake—one of the many blunders that have been made along the road. I sincerely hope that, in the fullness of time, possibly when the Bill is in the other place, the Minister will table some amendments that will restore the balance for the existing casino system and its operators that they justifiably deserve. I hope that he will take that point on board and look after the industry that has served us well without letting us down and that has a good reputation.
	I support amendment No. 143 and the move from eight to four casinos. I shall not reiterate all the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford, but simply say that destination resort casinos are a new phenomenon. We have licensing authorities with no experience and regeneration benefits that are as yet unknown.
	The scrutiny Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who is sitting next to me poised to intervene later, to which I look forward, said:
	"Whilst we acknowledge the Government's reluctance to publish national guidance relating specifically to regional/leisure destination casinos, we believe that it could help to ensure a consistent approach between regional authorities and avoid the need for applications to be called in for determination by the First Secretary of State."
	The Committee was remarkably tactful in making that point, because it was saying that the Government have got it wrong and have no idea of the chaos and confusion that will be visited upon them if they do not have proper national planning guidance.
	As we know, chaos and confusion did descend upon the Government, which is why I welcome the Minister's statement and the news that we will have an advisory panel to look at these matters. That is a substitute for planning guidance and procedures—the new way out of the bind that they have got themselves into. I support all that, but not the 888 proposal, because I think that that is too large a figure for the quicker process of evaluation and assessment that I want to see. In Committee, there was doubt about the timetable to be followed: whether it would be a drip, drip, drip affair, where assessments would take place as each casino ran up a number of years, or whether they would wait to the end. That is one reason why I support having four regional and leisure casinos. The assessment process would be quicker, we would get the results quicker and we could decide how to proceed on the basis of those results.

Alan Howarth: I wish to speak in support of amendment No. 96 and new clause 7.
	My right hon. Friends have already responded constructively to anxieties expressed by the public about their proposals to open the way for regional or mega-casinos. Instead of market forces determining how many such casinos there should be, there will now be eight in a first wave to be tested during a trial period, albeit a short one. Can we hope that my right hon. Friends might go further and withdraw their proposals for regional casinos all together? I am not very optimistic about that, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was reported on 17 November as saying:
	"I don't describe this as a cap . . . A cap is a once-and-for-all limit—what we are doing is introducing regional casinos more slowly than was the original intention."
	I have had the opportunity to have some conversation with my right hon. Friend, for which I thank her, and she told me that the Government's view on the matter was neutral and that it remained to be seen how, under the dispensation that they are creating, regional casinos would eventually develop.
	The question that I would like to put to Ministers is, who wants any regional or mega-casinos? The public do not. I understand that a national opinion poll survey found that 93 per cent. of respondents opposed the extension of casinos. Doubtless, the industry wants them, although it is interesting to note that it is not the United Kingdom industry. Some local authorities have expressed an intrigued interest and no doubt the Exchequer is attracted to the proposal. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor received £1.35 billion in gambling duties in 2003–04, and I fear that the Treasury's addiction to gambling revenues may grow. The Treasury should be encouraging saving, not gambling.
	Why should the character and quality of life of our communities be at the mercy of the executives of Caesars International—it is a very long time since we were last invaded by Caesar, and we have taken some national pride in the fact that it is many hundreds of years since we have been successfully invaded—Las Vegas Sands or MGM Mirage? I hope that the latter name is apt. It certainly is as far as gamblers' dreams go: this is an industry that profits only as its customers lose. I hope that, similarly, the £1.1 billion and more that MGM Mirage promised, or threatened, to invest in Britain will prove to be a mirage.
	I am not so puritanical or impractical as to seek to ban all gambling, but I believe that a responsible Government should tightly restrict it. Of course, that is what most of the Bill does, which is why I was content to vote for it on Second Reading. My right hon. Friends are right to take account of technical change, including the development of remote gambling and the arrival of video roulette games. I support their proposals on licensing, the establishment of the gambling commission, codes of practice and consultation of local authorities, the police and the public, but their proposals for mega-casinos—that we should have these casinos with up to 1,250 slot machines and £1 million jackpots—run entirely counter to the thrust of the rest of the Bill. I have noticed that the British Amusement Catering Trades Association, at some risk of self-contradiction, has described the machines as
	"untried, untested and highly addictive".
	My right hon. Friends say that their intention is to promote socially responsible gambling, but I find myself at a loss to understand the conception of socially responsible gambling. I have heard Ministers declare, perhaps somewhat romantically, that the poor should be enabled to enjoy the same pleasures as the rich, but I think we should ask the poor what they want. I noticed that women who were surveyed were particularly strongly opposed to the extension of gambling. So many women have seen the male so-called breadwinner taking a disproportionate share of the household income to the betting shop or dog track, and they know the consequences. According to the National Audit Office, gambling has a £53 billion turnover in Britain through betting shops, casinos and, of course, the national lottery. In passing, I wonder whether the proposals will not prove deeply damaging to the national lottery. That would mean a serious blow to culture, which it is my right hon. Friends' responsibility to defend.
	The Methodist Church and the Salvation Army have urged the Government to exercise greater restraint and more care. They have been at pains to be reasonable and I go further than them. I joined the Labour party because I thought that it took the view that it is the Government's responsibility to protect vulnerable people. That is what this Government want to do and that is what they do so very well in so many fields of policy, but I cannot see how the creation of mega-casinos will protect vulnerable people. I understand that we have in this country some 300,000 problem gamblers, and members of their families, their employers and their fellow employees are, of course, affected.
	Last November, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:
	"Economist Earl Grinols has studied the rates of crime, lost productivity, domestic abuse and other social ills in counties with and without casinos. He found that the 3 to 5 per cent. of players who become problem gamblers each end up costing society about $11,000. States would need to seize half a casino's profits, calculates Grinols, to cover the 'social wreckage' it generates. In Missouri, for instance, gambling tax revenue brought in a 'seeming windfall' of $242 million in 2002, yet the state lost an estimated $572 million in related business failures, crime, unemployment and other social costs."
	In contrast, in South Carolina
	"six months after it banned slot machines in 2002, two-thirds of the state's Gamblers Anonymous groups had disbanded and calls to help lines had plummeted."
	Citizens advice bureaux have a great deal of experience of helping individuals who have got into severe multiple debt as a result of their gambling addiction. A citizens advice bureau in south Wales has reported a case that may be characteristic:
	"A 62 year old pensioner approached a CAB in South Wales for advice about her debts. She had a problem with gambling and had built up £80,000 debt on various credit cards. When she got into difficulties she approached her bank who lent her a further £25,000, although her only income was £600 per month."
	Mega-casinos have historically been associated with people's propensity to self-destruction, vice and crime. We are introducing 24-hour drinking at the same time as we are discussing the abolition of the 24-hour rule that requires people to have been members of a club for not less than 24 hours if they want to go into casinos and gamble. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) spoke eloquently about that point in his advocacy of new clause 7, and he is right. One can imagine someone who has had too much to drink and who is armed with cash and a credit card going into a casino and ruining him or herself and their family. We should keep that sobering-up period. I am pleased to see that the British Casino Association itself wants the 24-hour membership requirement kept at all casinos.

Richard Caborn: No, I do not have time.
	Amendment No. 119, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), goes a little too far. I made it clear in Standing Committee that the Government would take a common-sense approach to reviewing the impact of the regional casinos. We have also said that the review will take place no less than three years after the beginning of the new regime. However, we will not begin the review until we are confident that a good number of casinos are established and operating in a reasonable spread of locations. It would be foolish to speculate now on what the right number or spread would be, when we do not know where the casinos will be. But the Government will not rush into the review if we cannot be confident about the quality of data that we might get out of it. My hon. Friend's amendment is therefore over-restrictive. It might be possible to draw reasonable conclusions about the impact of regional casinos when, say, five or six are established and in operation.
	Amendment No. 143 was tabled by members of the official Opposition, and returns us to a subject that we debated at length in Committee. The official Opposition want four regional casinos; we recommend eight. At the end of the day, this is a judgment call. It is not an exact science; far from it. What is important—and, indeed, what lies behind our decision—is the need to strike the appropriate balance between providing for a number that will enable a proper assessment of social impact to be made, while minimising the risk of social harm. We think that eight casinos will give a sound basis for a reasonable test. Four would be too few.
	Amendments Nos. 103, 104 and 105, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), would give local authorities a power to determine in advance the exact number of casinos in their area. We think that that goes too far. We accept—indeed, it was we who proposed it—that some authorities should have the power to reflect strong local opinion and not allow any new casinos in their area if they are not wanted. The decision of local authorities can also reflect the view that there is a sufficient number in their area. We do not accept, however, that local authorities should be able to specify a number in advance. Amendment No. 104 would give licensing authorities a power that they already have, because clause 161 already gives them the power to have regard to "any principle or matter". That is intentionally very broad, and would clearly allow an authority to take account of the likely social impact of new casinos.
	Amendment No. 100 was also tabled by the hon. Member for Bath, and I do not think that it is needed. Casinos that are licensed now under the Gaming Act 1968 will continue to be licensed after that Act is repealed through transitional provisions in an order made under schedule 18 to the Bill. The order will deem those casinos, under powers in paragraph 9 of schedule 18, to have premises licences under the Bill, but they will be limited to 10 gaming machines of up to category B1. Under the powers in paragraph 10 of the same schedule they will not be allowed to provide betting or bingo. Those provisions will provide a mix of casinos, on the basis of which the House, in future years, can make a sound decision on how it wants to move forward.
	Clause 7(5)(d) makes it clear that a separate category of casinos, which are below the minimum size for a small casino, will exist under the Bill. Paragraph 3(a) of schedule 18 makes it clear that a casino premises licence may be issued for such a casino, despite the fact that it does not meet the size requirement. Clause 7(5)(d) is needed purely to exempt the casinos from the minimum size requirement that applies to new casinos. Nor does amendment No. 101 have any effect on the meaning of clause 7, as casino games provided on premises can only be provided on casino premises. Therefore, no harm arises from the single reference to "premises" in clause 7(4).
	Amendment No. 102 is also unnecessary. The Standing Committee had concerns about multiple licences on a single premises, but as I have stated previously, such an arrangement is not possible under the Bill.
	Amendments Nos. 116 and 117 lead us on to the linked topics of identity and membership. The amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Bath make two new proposals: first, that everyone entering the gaming area of casinos should show photographic ID to door supervisors; and secondly, that gaming machines should be allowed in what we have called the non-gambling area. The Government agree entirely with him that casinos have a responsibility to confirm the age of customers. That is why a person who fails to do that is guilty of a criminal offence under clause 46. I do not agree, however, that we must impose the requirement that he seeks.
	The hon. Member for Bath is also concerned about money laundering and I agree that strong controls are necessary. I do not agree, however, that those controls should take the form of identification on entry. He misled the House, probably unwittingly, when he misquoted the second money laundering directive, which does not require ID on entry. Instead, it requires that ID must be given when buying and selling more than €1,000 of chips. As we discussed in Standing Committee, that is how money laundering controls are enforced now, but it is possible to maintain the same level of vigilance without checks on entry, and we should not impose excessive burdens on the industry without good reason.
	On the other aspects of the amendment, I must disagree with the hon. Member for Bath. The non-gambling area of a casino should be exactly that—free from gambling of any type. The purpose of such an area is to give gamblers a readily available break from gambling, which is hardly possible if it is full of pub-style gaming machines.
	I recognise that my hon. Friends have the best intentions in proposing new clause 7 and amendment No. 93, but I cannot agree with them. The current membership rule and 24-hour delay before play provide no significant protection to consumers, and nor are they practical to operate for any large casino when large numbers of people are likely to arrive at peak periods. I remind my hon. Friends that casinos provide adult entertainment, and if an adult wishes to enter a casino, it is not reasonable to ask that person to become a member, any more than it would be reasonable to ask someone to be a member of their local pub or betting office.
	Amendment negatived.
	It being two hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration of the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

Sandra Osborne: I would like to add my concerns to those expressed by other hon. Members. I speak as someone who represents three seaside towns on the south-west coast of Scotland, and who hopes to represent even more seaside towns there in future. If the Minister has not visited Ayrshire, I can certainly recommend it to him. It certainly does not rain there has much as it does in Kirkcaldy. When it does rain, however, family amusement centres are an important mechanism for supporting tourism and small businesses in those towns.
	I recently visited Girvan, which is currently part of the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), to remind myself what family amusement centres are like. It is some years since I frequented them, but in common with other hon. Members, I enjoyed the experience and it did not do me any lasting damage. As other hon. Members have said, the fact that there is not any evidence that category D machines are harmful is significant. When I went to Girvan I could not think of a logical reason for the Government's proposal to ban children from traditional games such as "grab a toy", penny falls, ticket redemption games and Derby races, all of which seemed to be quite harmless.
	However, I draw Members' attention to the briefing from the Methodist Church, in which it draws a distinction between different category D games:
	"Category D machines, which can be played by children, include the harmless teddy-bear grabber machines and "penny falls", but also include certain fruit-machines."
	That sheds light on the reasons for the Government's proposals. We have all had a great laugh this evening about "grab a teddy", but that does not necessarily reflect the views of the Government or the Churches. We all accept that some games are harmless, but the Churches are concerned about children playing fruit machines, and we should not ignore or discount those concerns. We all want to do everything that we can to protect children.

Richard Caborn: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Don Foster: I wish to speak briefly to new clause 9, but I begin by saying that I entirely support the comments made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and his amendments. The House will be aware that my name and that of my hon. Friends is linked to those amendments.
	In Committee, it became clear to a number of us that ticketless lotteries that are run by charities, in many cases hospices, would be required by the Bill to increase significantly bureaucracy and administrative costs. That is the case because ticketless lotteries are run in such a way as to ensure that those who participate in them agree to do so week in, week out, paying up front a lump sum for every week's amounts, and get a single document informing them that their name will be included in the draw every week. It became apparent, however, that the wording of the Bill would have ensured that the organisers of such lotteries were unable to continue to do that and made it necessary for them to send out a document to every participant each and every week.
	Hence the increase in bureaucracy and administrative costs. Many of us on the Committee were extremely grateful to a number of the people who run such lotteries, in particular the Ty Hafan children's hospice in Wales, which worked very hard to raise its concerns with members of the Committee. It is worth bearing in mind that, over the past 10 years, some £100 million has been raised by hospices using this fundraising approach. The Minister acknowledged that there was a problem. In Committee, he said:
	"naturally, we do not want to subject any hospice lottery to the cost and inconvenience of unnecessarily printing many thousands of tickets on a weekly basis. That would be stupid . . . The object of the exercise is to make it as simple as possible for charities to run such lotteries, but equally, to provide the protection covered in clause 92(5)."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 2 December 2004; c. 309–310.]
	I was grateful to him for that, and I note that he has tabled some alternative amendments covering the issue, for which I am also grateful.
	Although I shall continue to press new clause 9— I shall probably not press it to a vote, however—may I ask the Minister to give me some assurance that, after his consultations with the relevant lottery organisers, he believes that they are now satisfied with the amendments that he has tabled? In particular, I draw his attention to the reference to electronic storage of information. Has he consulted on whether such provision is future- proofed? With the development of mobile phone technology, it is likely that, within a few years, some of those organising such lotteries might wish to use mobile phones. Would that be acceptable? The development of interactive television is a further example that we have already seen. Again, it may be possible to use such technology as a means of providing the necessary information. Will he assure me that those issues are covered by the terminology used in his amendments?

Richard Caborn: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for tabling new clause 8. As he knows, I have met faith groups several times during the passage of the Bill, and I have sympathy with their concerns about gambling on Christmas day. At present, betting offices and betting tracks are prohibited from offering bets on Good Friday and Christmas day. There is no equivalent prohibition in relation to gaming or lotteries.
	Times have moved on since that restriction was put in place in the 1960s, so the Government did not propose that it be replicated in the Bill. However, I recognise the strength of feeling about Christmas day in particular, and I am happy to agree that it might be appropriate to enable the commission to prescribe certain days on which operators should be prevented from providing facilities for gambling. I am therefore happy to give the issue further consideration, but in the meantime ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the new clause.
	On amendment No. 99, I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, but we see no reason for imposing a blanket ban on all operators to prevent them from offering credit to their players. We agree that such matters must be regulated; that is what clause 79 is intended to do. It gives the commission the powers to attach appropriate conditions to licensing; to control when and, indeed, how credit is offered, and where inducements to gambling are perhaps provided. The clause expressly prevents casinos and bingo operators from offering credit to players. That is currently the law and will remain the law.
	The Gaming Board has a successful track record of controlling improper inducements and I am sure that the new gambling commission will continue that. If problems emerge in future, the gambling commission will not hesitate to impose licence conditions that better protect consumers. I hope that, with those reassurances, my hon. Friend is content to withdraw the motion.

Frank Doran: Obviously, I agree, at least on this one occasion, with the hon. Gentleman.
	The Minister has been conciliatory tonight, and all that I can ask is that he takes away this issue and considers it. If there is evidence that the proposal is necessary in the interests of protection of children, let us see it, because I am not aware that we have been shown any.